Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Did it Have to be … Guns?
Webley Page ^ | March 30,2004 | Neil Smith

Posted on 03/30/2004 6:15:38 AM PST by Shooter 2.5

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith lneil@lneilsmith.com

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

You are here: Webley Page > Lever Action > Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial
KEYWORDS: activism; bang; banglist; bor; politics; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: Shooter 2.5
Looks like you posted yours as I was typing mine. ;-)
21 posted on 03/30/2004 7:24:35 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
L. Neil Smith Bump:


http://www.lneilsmith.com/

22 posted on 03/30/2004 7:26:54 AM PST by society-by-contract
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5; *bang_list
Bump - great assay.
23 posted on 03/30/2004 7:37:54 AM PST by Triple (All forms of socialism deny individuals the right to the fruits of their labor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The problem is a parole system that allows violent felons back out on the street. I sometimes believe this is done to make the streets more dangerous than they would be otherwise, so the sheeple will cry, "Its so dangerous out there! Please Mr. Big Government, do something!!"
24 posted on 03/30/2004 7:49:23 AM PST by kidao35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kidao35
Our justice system is a mess because it is more concerned with LAW than it is with justice. Fix that and a lot of things would be better.

Allowing us to protect ourselves from predators would do the rest.

25 posted on 03/30/2004 7:56:41 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
NH: Seized by the Manchester Police for Open Carry (vanity)
26 posted on 03/30/2004 8:35:53 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
80 million gun owners broke no laws yesterday. Vanishingly few will break any law of any type today. Why punish them or treat them like criminals?

Ah, but they ARE guilty of a crime - that of being able to challenge the authority of our Superiors, the All-Knowing plutocrats that we all serve. /retch

27 posted on 03/30/2004 9:02:18 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kidao35
I sometimes believe this is done to make the streets more dangerous than they would be otherwise, so the sheeple will cry, "Its so dangerous out there! Please Mr. Big Government, do something!!"

A multitude of problems are caused by government, which then offers a (non-) solution to them, which in turn creates more problems, etc., etc. All along the way, we are relieved of the burden of carrying around so much money and of our rights.

It IS a plan, just not a coordinated one - the pols of the various factions each have their own agendas, as do the bureaucraps.

28 posted on 03/30/2004 9:05:40 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Outstanding............thanks !

Stay safe !

29 posted on 03/30/2004 9:36:48 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I think that shooters are gravitating back to Bush, since it looks like the AWB will be allowed to sunset. But if the RINOs do a midnight backstab, all bets are off.
30 posted on 03/30/2004 10:01:18 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: viaveritasvita
BTW, what's a "four-flusher???"

Alternate definition:

Four-Flusher ( poker )

A cheater. Probably comes from one who tries to bluff when holding only a four-flush, or who cheats by showing four cards to a flush and tries to claim the pot without showing the fifth

31 posted on 03/30/2004 10:27:42 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
four-flusher -

I thought that described the government mandated toilets we are forced to buy.

32 posted on 03/30/2004 10:39:58 AM PST by oyez (Flush this, John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Once your punishment is done, you should get your Rights back.

And until relatively recently, you did. (YMMV depending on your state) Released prisoners could walk to the nearest general store and buy a sidearm, a rifle, or whatever they felt they needed.

33 posted on 03/30/2004 10:43:04 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
He's also the AZ Libertarian Party candidate for president.
34 posted on 03/30/2004 10:53:21 AM PST by wingnutx (the freeper formerly known Britton J. Wingnutx [tanstaafl])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
1968 GCA wasn't it?
35 posted on 03/30/2004 11:20:26 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
bump
36 posted on 03/30/2004 11:31:51 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you must; perform without fail that what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
This thoughtful article covers well all of the important points, but what does the author have against Prussians?
37 posted on 03/30/2004 11:37:07 AM PST by Unknowing (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
I also assumed that a "four flusher" had to do with a large clump that just wouldn't go down.
38 posted on 03/30/2004 11:39:38 AM PST by MrB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
Anyone know what the NRA has in mind this election? It delivered TN and WV to Bush last time. Where are they now?
I will talk to a friend of mine who is a former Board Member and see if I can find out anything.
39 posted on 03/30/2004 11:40:01 AM PST by wjcsux (Charter Member, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

bump for later
40 posted on 03/30/2004 3:18:17 PM PST by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson